Friday, 31 December 2010

I have on at least one other occasion used this blog to comment on a novel, and having just spent a couple of months digesting Jonathan Franzen’s novel, Freedom, I feel the need to do it again, especially as it has renewed my ponderings on the difference between novels and movies and the way they transform us.

Like many offerings of deep value, I did not instantly love Freedom. This is partly because Franzen had already overwhelmed me with his sheer writing brilliance last time around with Corrections (2001). At that point I was so impressed that I had to start writing things while reading it, just so some of his style would intuitively rub off on me. If I ever finished anything I’d know if I succeeded even a little.

So I expected the readable prose that shows you don’t have to be incomprehensible to add layers of depth and the intuitive insight he demonstrates in his characters and relationships. I just took these for granted and braced myself for the middle bits, which I knew from a review would make me frustrated with the main characters – with whom I shared more than just a name (the male protagonist is Walter). Then, right in the middle of the frustrating part of the story, I parked the novel for three weeks while I travelled on a study abroad trip, not wanting to carry a 576 page hardcover around with me.

In the end, I was left with a deep appreciation for the long read. It is, appropriately, too complex to sum up the way I am about to, but by joining the Berglund family through the decades on either side of the dawning of the millennium, you get a chance to ponder the theme echoed in the title. The personal freedoms of recent generations are certainly not a bad thing, but they are a decidedly mixed blessing. Many different freedoms compete with each other, and sometimes the commitments, obligations and compulsions (even those that are or appear unhealthy) are the anchors to meaning and hope.

Movies do not soak you in an eight week experience. In terms of offering personal transformation (and, yes, that is what I’m looking for from a good novel or movie – at least a little), movies are the Saturday seminar compared to a novel which is like a year at a university or college. Transformation takes time and relationship. Experiences need to be reflected on, discussed, re-experienced, remembered – and during this process we need to try on new ways of thinking and feeling to see how they fit.

Yes, movies can do this. I think of The Mission, which tops my personal list of favourites. Several scenes planted themselves deeply into my memory (the penance, the forgiveness, the encounter with the oboe, the divergent responses to the final battle – to name a few). These and other scenes (and the Morricone soundtrack) have made me watch the movie over again several times and use clips in classes. This ongoing interaction can make it a transformative experience.

So here is the question I will end with: Are there too many movies that are not worth this kind of ongoing interaction, or do we simply tend to be too lazy and unintentional, thereby missing the opportunity to allow a good film to transform us? Assuming the answer is some kind of blend, I would like to watch fewer movies if it would help me to have longer interaction with those that are good. I would like to learn more from the humble, reflective confidence of Captain Abu Raed, not forgetting his smile on his hands and knees. I would like to discuss with more people what we learn about our present and future society from The Social Network (is there a danger Facebook will make us as shallow and immature as its origins or is social media just the reflection of a shallow and immature culture? What’s the difference between being truly cool [having integrity and real character] vs. just knowing when to cash in on appearing cool?). Now, if only I can find the right movies without watching too many.

Friday, 3 December 2010

I like Rachel McAdams. I like Harrison Ford. I like Jeff Goldblum. I liked almost every scene in Morning Glory in which McAdams interacted with Ford or Goldblum and I liked the performance of each of these actors throughout the film. It wasn’t enough.

When Morning Glory focused on relationships, especially the ones mentioned above, I quite enjoyed it. Unfortunately, Morning Glory (directed by Roger Michell) is framed around a plot that was so revolting to me that I could not enjoy the film as a whole. That plot has to do with a morning TV show called Daybreak, which Becky Fuller (McAdams) finds herself producing. What she does to improve the ratings of this show is absolutely disgusting and I struggled unsuccessfully to find a hint of irony or parody. Everything that’s wrong with television, including the way TV handles news stories, is presented without apparent apology in Morning Glory (at least 30 Rock makes TV look as ridiculous as it is). When Daybreak was on the air, I tuned out, as the supposedly growing TV audience should have done. Fuller’s efforts should have been singularly unsuccessful, but...

Aside from TV series on DVD, which I can watch without ads whenever I want to, and the odd sporting event, I have watched almost no TV for many many years. Morning Glory shows one reason why, but the laughs didn’t work for me. Roger (Ebert) somehow gave this film ***+, making me think I should go see it. Not worth the $10 for me, though Kathy enjoyed it more. **+ My mug is facing the wrong way.

Pillars of the Earth

Speaking of TV on DVD, I made the mistake of picking up, and immediately watching, Pillars of the Earth, based on the book by Ken Follett. Having been told that the book is well worth reading and seeing a very fine lineup of actors, and knowing the film concerned the building of a cathedral in the twelfth century, I thought this would be the kind of miniseries Kathy and I would love. I was profoundly disappointed, and I can only hope and suppose that the writer and director were to blame. The miniseries was clumsy, ridiculously graphic in its depiction of violence and completely uninspiring. Compare it to The Tudors, also made with Canadian involvement, which Kathy and I have thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated over the years. The Tudors is an example of what TV is capable of at its best. Pillars shows how badly TV can mess up even a good story with good actors.

Inside Job

This documentary film should be studiously avoided by almost everyone in the western world (especially by Americans), unless you somehow escaped the 2008 financial meltdown unscathed. The avoidance of this film is not because of its quality. This is a superb documentary, written and directed by Charles Ferguson and narrated by Matt Damon. Inside Job brilliantly explains what happened before and during 2008 leading to the financial crisis which cost millions and millions of people (the poorer ones, of course) their jobs and their homes. I’m sure every word is true (e.g. that the men responsible knew what they were doing but saw how they could get rich while countless others suffered) and that these men are still calling the shots for the U.S. government instead of serving time in jail (actually, I do not believe in prisons, but these fellows need to at least be prevented from working in any finance-related job).

So why should you avoid seeing this film? Because it will make you so angry that I fear for your cardiovascular system, that’s why. **** My mug is way up.

Follow by Email

Welcome

So these two brothers who love movies and like to write want to have an excuse to watch movies and write about them. As a bonus, though they're an ocean apart (ok - now only half a continent), they get to have an ongoing conversation. You're welcome to eavesdrop on this conversation, especially if you like to think about movies and other cultural offerings with some occasional theological and psychological nuances. And, of course, you're welcome to join in the conversation.